On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 13:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl>
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 09:44:13AM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > After reading
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/8967, I really
> > don't think that systemd-resolved's benefits outweigh its harms as a
> > default resolver for Fedora. If someone wants to write a
> > libfriendlydnsresolver and encourage/patch programs to use it instead of
> > using glibc's resolver or reading resolv.conf, then that could be debated
> > on its merits. But the actual contents of /etc/resolv.conf should follow
> > the relevant standards, and systemd-resolved does not.
> >
> > Perhaps systemd-resolved could change its mind and decide to comply with
> > all relevant standards. But until then, it seems inappropriate to me for
> > it to be the default in Fedora.
>
> Pfff, now I'm confused. Here is a case where systemd-resolved implements
> the
> standard, and some people were unhappy because they were relying on sloppy
> implementations which don't follow the RFC. Nevertheless, we added an
> opt-in
> switch to make this work. (Since this feature mostly matters in "special"
> setups like k8s, where you need to do a lot of local setup anyway,
> requiring
> a one-line option seems to be reasonable).
>
Hey for those of us in the peanuts gallery watching this play out.. could
each of you point out which standards and RFC you are complying too. There
are a lot of ones and funny enough.. they don't all agree with each other
at times.